Jerry Knox and Melvyn Kay
Jerry Knox is a Principal Research Fellow in Irrigation and Water Resources, Department of Sustainable Systems, Cranfield University, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. Melvyn Kay is with RTCS Ltd, Moorland House, 10 Hayway, Rushden, Northants NN10 6AG, UK.
Proposals from the EU Parliament
The pro-European political groups in the European Parliament have in some cases drawn up position papers containing additional proposals for reforming the CAP. All these party groups, EPP, S&D, ALDE, and The Greens, support the European "Green Deal" and a stronger environmental and climate focus ofthe CAP. There are also proposals for a fundamental reform that links subsidies to environmentally friendly technologies and supports research and development. 30 The EPP Group calls for a simplification of subsidy payments and flexibility for national governments in achieving environmental and climate targets. 31 Some MEPs are critical ofthe re-nationalization ofthe CAP and call for a European agricultural policy that explicitly takes into account the Paris Climate Agreement. For example, the Green/European Free Alliance Group calls for European agriculture to become more ecological and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 32 This is to be achieved by linking CAP payments more closely to requirements concerning nature, environment, and climate protection. A further proposal is to limit the number of animals onthe farms if the capacity ofthe local environment is exceeded. The group also calls for a re-examination of animal husbandry and production to improve animal welfare, create more sustainable production systems and lower meat consumption. The CAP reform proposal from the Group ofthe Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) in the European Parliament differs from the Commission's draft and those ofthe other parties in essential elements. While the S&D Group's position paper calls for payments to be linked to environmental and animal welfare requirements, it also suggests a return to greater market intervention. For example, it calls for the reintroduction of support prices to regulate value chains and support farmers. The party is also critical of free trade agreements and calls for strict compliance with environmental and health standards for imports from developing countries. 33
UNU-WIDER, Katajanokanlaituri 6 B, 00160 Helsinki, Finland, wider.unu.edu
The views expressed in this publication are those ofthe author(s). Publication does not imply endorsement by the Institute or the United Nations University, nor by the programme/project sponsors, of any ofthe views expressed.
Abstract: The paper provides estimates of economic impactsofclimatechange, compares these with historical impactsof drought spells, and estimates the extent to which the current Moroccan agriculturaldevelopment and investment strategy, the Plan Maroc Vert, helps in agricultural adaptation to climatechange and uncertainty. We develop a regionalized Morocco Computable General Equilibrium model to analyse the linkages ofclimate-induced productivity losses (gains) at the level of administrative and economic regions in Morocco. Yield projections are obtained from the joint-study by the Moroccan Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the World Bank, in collaboration with the National Institute for Agricultural Research, the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, and the Direction of National Meteorology. We model theclimatechangeimpacts as productivity (or yield) shocks in theagricultural sector, and which are region- and crop-specific. The yield projections are for 2050, and introduced with respect to a 2003 baseline. With no adaptation, GDP impacts range from -3.1 per cent (worst-case scenario) to +0.4 per cent (best case scenario). The decline in GDP under the worst-case scenario results from a general contraction in economic aggregates. Accounting for the adaptation measures in the Plan Maroc Vert, the GDP impacts from climatechange are reduced and range from -0.3 per cent to +3 per cent. Nonetheless, the adaptation potential ofthe Plan Maroc Vert is based upon the assumption of achieving the identified productivity-enhancement targets, and which remains questionable.
of sphericity indicated that all the variables included were relevant. Six factors which cumulatively explain about 65.21 percent ofthe total variance ofthe seventeen variables were identified. These factors have been retained according to Kaiser’s criterion.
From the factor analysis results, the following variables had the largest factor loading onthe first factor: operated land, quantity of fertilizer bought (NPK and Urea), farm equipment value, available own funds, credit obtained, number of household members. Since these variables measure household resources status the factor is referred to as Resources Endowment. The second factor has more factor loadings from the variables assets value and livestock value, thus it is referred to here as Wealth. The third factor has more factor loading from household irrigation practice and from the access to water for irrigation; therefore it is referred to here as Irrigation development capacity. The fourth has the largest loadings from crop diversification and plant different varieties (ofthe same crop); we refer to it as on farm
in temperatures, reduction of direct radiation and also changes in precipitation patterns. The general assumption is that temperature increments in mid latitudes may shorten the length ofthe growing period for crops and, in the absence of compensatory management responses, reduce yields (Tubiello et al. 2007). In contrast, a higher concentration of CO2 should increase photosynthesis efficiency and water use efficiency. Increases or decreases in precipitation will also impact agriculture. In conclusion, theimpactsofclimatechangeon crops yields will be the result of a balance between these negative and positive effects on plant growth and development (Magrin, 2005). These variations can changethe area of cultivation by rendering unsuitable some currently cultivated areas and making suitable others not currently cultivated. Increasing the prediction capacity ofclimatechangeimpacts for stakeholders has become a major challenge in La Plata Basin, region which gathers parts of five countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), and which economic wealth strongly depends on agriculture (AQUASTAT, 2010). In this region, theagricultural landscape have faced major changes during the last 30 years due to new technologies for crops, a strong increase in cereal and oil crop world demand and also to favorable climate conditions showing increases of about 20%-30% in annual precipitation over large parts ofthe basin (Magrin, 2005). This increase of precipitation favored the expansion of crops from cultivated to marginal areas, though the last ones are most vulnerable to climatechange and variation. As agricultural forecast, the world’s demand for cereal and oil crops (and derived products) or animal products is likely to increase considering both the growing demand in food and biofuel. The consequences on land-use, onthe sustainability ofthe soils and therefore onthe rural development in La Plata Basin are still unknown.
and/or will contribute to the inflection in the growth rate ofthe GHG emissions curve in the country, which reflects the commitment by many stakeholders to combat climatechange.
Nevertheless, in most ofthe existing institutions and public policies in the context ofclimatechange in Brazil, the space for issues related to agriculture is limited. As far as the issue of family farming is concerned, such a role is marginal or virtually non-existent. The fact that agricultural activities are responsible for an increasing proportion of GHG emissions may have a significantly impact in terms of public policies related to agricultural activities in the context ofclimatechange in the near and medium term. However, if this is in fact verified it is likely to address issues related more to commercial farming, especially as far as mitigation aspects are concerned. It is yet to be seen how (and if) the special context of family farming will be reflected in the public policies and programmes to be adopted, especially if adaptation is to be taken into consideration. Hence, the mobilisation of stakeholders in the sector is fundamental to reflecting their interests in future policies and regulations, including the mobilisation of funding.
In anticipation of rising sea levels, higher levels of water discharge, and more precipitation, the Netherlands has developed a National Spatial Strategy to ensure its waterways will be able to cope with increased river flows due to these climatechange effects. In this strategy, co-operation with local and regional authorities is heavily emphasised as well as the principle of “going with and anticipating the flow”. 12 Regional plans must now include the “water test”, which makes sure that spatial plans take water management into consideration from the outset. With respect to river water management, a main concern is flooding, prompted by the 1993 and 1995 floods. Although the main driver is public safety, potential increased risks due to climatechange are also considered. The Space for the Rivers policy programme is currently being redesigned to include the creation of extra space for rivers in order to adapt to higher levels of river discharge, thus lowering the chance for flooding. Furthermore, land surrounding major rivers is to be zoned in such a way as to reduce groundwater and surface water pollution. Flooding in coastal zones is also a major concern in the Netherlands. Restrictions ondevelopment near and inside dykes include an expansion ban within 100 metres inside the dykes and 175 meters outside the dykes, excluding wind turbines. 13 Furthermore, eight sites along coastal foundations have been designated high-priority for maintenance and improvements in order to strengthen these sea defences.
In the spatial planning strategy for avoidance, miti- gation and adaptation strategies with regard to the spa- tial consequences ofclimatechange, adopted by the 36th session ofthe Standing Conference of Ministers re- sponsible for Spatial Planning meeting in June 2009, the ministers issued a mandate to trial regional strategies in demonstration projects. This approach, with its three action areas in the field ofclimatechange mitigation and seven action areas in the field ofclimatechange adaptation, especially those that address precaution- ary flood control measures in river basins, coastal pro- tection and regional water shortages, forms an impor- tant framework for action by federal states and regions, and was updated in October 2011. The action area enti- tled “protection against the effects of heat in settlement areas (areas with a bioclimate with an adverse impact on health)” exhibits a close link to climatechange ad- aptation in municipalities. At local authority level, the 116th session ofthe Standing Conference of Federal State Ministers and Senators responsible for Urban Develop- ment, Building and Housing, meeting in April 2008, fo- cused on “climatechange mitigation in the building, housing and urban development sectors”, and the Ger- man Association of Cities’ Special Commission for Urban Development Planning, meeting in October 2011, fo- cused onthe key strategy of “climate-sensitive and en- ergy-efficient urban restructuring”. One ofthe priorities ofthe national urban development policy is the “Build- ing the city of tomorrow – climatechange mitigation and global responsibility” area of action.
flexible planting and rainwater harvesting.
Traditionally, most farmers follow rigid planting schedules during the year reflecting expected optimal planting times based on past experience. For instance, outofthe surveyed farmers, only 5% in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia (Deressa et al. 2009), 3% in Northern provinces of South Africa (Gbetibouo 2009), and 16% in 11 African countries (Hassan and Nhemachena 2008) adopt flexible planting dates to match the delayed or early onset of rainfall. Without good meteorological predictions about rainfall, this is a sound planting strategy. However, investment in improved meteorological services and communication to farmers may allow farmers to adjust planting times to predicted rainfall in order to mitigate some ofthe within growing season precipitation variability. The potential for mitigation through flexible planting is much greater during the longer main growing season when farmers can delay planting substantially if rains are delayed and still have sufficient growing time for plants to develop. Many countries in East Africa incorporate the provision of timely weather information to farmers in their national strategies (Nzuma et al. 2010). Various projects and schemes are currently being implemented in selected sites across many countries in Africa. For instance, “ESOKO Africa” allows smallholder farmers to sign up and receive information related to weather forecasts, market prices, and a weekly advisory
The detailed assessment of a structure is very important in order to understand the various parameters like mode of damage, the extent of damage, structural behaviour, deterioration mechanics (Robert, 2001). It is also necessary to have sound knowledge ofthe surrounding environment ofthe structure for an accurate assessment ofthe damage mechanism (Breysse, 2010). The Non Destructive Tests (NDT) are very useful in the assessment of a damaged structure. These tests include several methods like Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity, Half-cell potential, core & powder sampling, depending onthe parameter that is desired to find out. The challenges also exist with the NDTs as these tests are sensitive to the moisture content and temperature as well. However, it is necessary to monitor the structure continuously which helps in understanding the future performance ofthe structure and also the rehabilitation or retrofitting systems can be assessed to strengthen the structure (Song, Saraswathy 2007).
Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) are the workhorse of assessments oftheagriculturalimpactsofclimatechange. Yet the changes in crop yields projected by different models in response to the same meteorological forcing can differ substantially. Through an inter-method comparison, we provide a first glimpse into the origins and implications of this divergence—both among GGCMs and between GGCMs and historical observations. We examine yields of rainfed maize, wheat, and soybeans simulated by six GGCMs as part ofthe Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project-Fast Track (ISIMIP-FT) exercise, comparing 1981-2004 hindcast yields over the coterminous United States (U.S.) against U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) time series for about 1,000 counties. Leveraging the empirical climatechangeimpacts literature, we estimate reduced-form econometric models of crop yield responses to temperature and precipitation exposures for both GGCMs and observations. We find that up to 60% ofthe variance in both simulated and observed yields is attributable to weather variation. Majority ofthe GGCMs have difficulty reproducing the observed distribution of percentage yield anomalies, and exhibit aggregate responses that show yields to be more weather-sensitive than in the observational record over the predominant range of temperature and precipitation conditions. This disparity is largely attributable to heterogeneity in GGCMs’ responses, as opposed to uncertainty in historical weather forcings, and is responsible for widely divergent impactsofclimateon future crop yields.
• Knowledge deficits onthe direct impactsofclimatechangeon biological diversity, at the habitat level: In this area, scientific knowledge and data from monitoring programs are still unsatisfactory in many cases [ 4 ]. The links between climatechange, onthe one hand, and climate-change-induced changes in habitats, onthe other, have not yet been sufficiently researched. The extent to which the natural adaptability of species influences the observable effects ofclimatechange remains unclear in many areas. Furthermore, it is to be expected that, in certain cases, effects on habitats will only become apparent after a long time-lag. Therefore, no approach could be found to translate the effects ofclimatechangeon habitats, into a suitable indicator proposal. • Interaction of climatic effects with other influencing factors: Overall, it has to be considered that climate-change-induced impactson biological diversity interact with effects of other factors, such as land-use changes or the spread of alien species [ 42 ]. It should be noted, however, that these factors are also partly dependent onclimatechange, but have so far also essentially changed independently of it. For example, the general changes in land use that have prevailed for a long time, such as urbanization or agricultural intensification, result in massive changes in biological diversity, from which direct and indirect impactsofclimatechange can hardly be isolated. This is partly due to the fact that, in many cases, the indirect effects ofclimatechangeon biological diversity (e.g., through adaptation of land use to climatechange), have so far been little pronounced and can, therefore, hardly be detected [ 43 ]. For these reasons, none ofthe indicator approaches discussed, fully meets the requirement to reflect changes in biological diversity that are predominantly and, above all, clearly attributable to land use adaptation measures to climatechange or climate protection measures.
Also adaptive capacity for change in social, economic or climatic terms is not developed among farmers. The evidence is an assortment of various factors: the complete reliance onthe state (except farmers in North-West- ern Province, who never received much, so they also do not expect any- thing), not having much say as an individual; lack of experience with other institutions or the private sector; no choices because of poverty; poor edu- cation; and sometimes because of relying on religious faith („It is Gods plan“). All in all farmers and the rural population seem to have a very “pro- nounced ability to suffer”, which hampers them from trying to escape poverty or to even complain about their situation. The self esteem of farm- ers seems to be low, they look for a leader, rather than creating participa- tion. The individual motivation for change is also very low. This is the case, because the individual farmer knows, that he/she cannot get far, as solo attempts are culturally not inacceptable. Promising individual attempts to escape poverty are usually discouraged by family members, either by threatening to use magic, or through other means, i.e. claiming a financial share. In rural Zambia, this culture is still common and very pronounced, not also within families and between clans, in particular, when persons from underrepresented tribes try to succeed.
Our model also has important implication for inequality. It is widely acknowledged that poor countries are less capable of adapting to climatechange [60, 61]. Our results highlight a new potential source of spatial inequality in vulnerability to climatechange: the differential effect ofclimatechangeon relative sectoral productivity will affect parental decisions about fertility levels and education for children. In high latitude countries, which tend to be richer, climatechange may lead to lower fertility and higher skill accumulation, the reverse of what we find for low latitude countries. Thus, these forces may increase the gap between the richer high-latitude countries and poorer equatorial countries. We find little heterogeneity in impacts when considering differences in levels ofdevelopment independently of differences in location.
Some aspects ofthe guardrail approach already appear in the ‘backcasting’ method for energy policy analysis (Robinson, 1982). In a backcasting analysis, future goals and objectives (for energy policy) are first defined in an explicitly normative way. The analysis works then backwards from this future end-point to the present in order to determine the physical feasibility of that future and the policy mea- sures that would be required to reach it. In the systematic suggested by Morgan and Henrion (1990, Chapter 3), the guardrail approach is a satisficing method. Since the guardrail approach applies a hybrid decision criterion that includes rights-based and utility-based decision criteria, it may be characterized as a ‘bounded-risk bounded-cost’ strategy. Yet in contrast to the decision-analytical frameworks dis- cussed in Morgan and Henrion (1990), the guardrail approach aims at characterizing the complete set of acceptable policy strategy rather than just determining a single acceptable policy path. The guardrail approach may be considered as a dynamical generalization ofthe ‘critical loads’ concept, which proved very successful in the negotiation process ofthe Second Sulphur Protocol (Batterman, 1990; Alcamo et al., 1990; Hettelingh et al., 1995). In this tradition, Swart and Vellinga (1994) called for “a new ap- proach to climatechange research” that starts with defining “critical levels” of ecosystem response on a regional level, and to work backwards to determine “ultimate objective levels of GHG concentration changes”. However, the proposed approach was not implemented in any IAM. The guardrail approach enables the implementation ofthe ‘pessimization paradigm’ and more complex paradigms for sustain- able development (Schellnhuber and Wenzel, 1998; Schellnhuber, 1999). However, a detailed discussion of that topic is beyond the scope of this thesis. From an economic perspective, the guardrail approach borrows features from multi-criteria analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and scenario analysis (cf. Bruckner et al., 2003b), which are combined with elements ofthe ‘bounded rationality’ concept (Simon, 1972).
Furthermore, human society is extremely multidimensional and many products and services we consume directly or indirectly rely on factors that are not valued in markets. For example, the benefits of watershed protection provided by forests is extremely difficult to monetize. Another example is the existence of animal species whose existence humans value (e.g., tigers, bald eagles) yet which are not traded in markets. One way to think about this is that certain animals are traded for human consumption (e.g., chickens), and hence there are ways to monetize their market value. Since we do not consume tigers or eagles, it is extremely difficult to monetize damage to these species, so what is needed are damage functions for the most important ‘sectors’ ofthe economy that map climate into welfare outcomes. I will describe in more detail below what the cutting-edge methods are that are currently being developed, but it is fair to say that the current IAMs use damage functions developed in the 1990s and early 2000s, which are terribly outof date. To summarize, in theory, IAMs go end to end from a time series of emissions scenarios to a time series of values for outcomes of interest. How is this related to climatechange? Conceptually, this is pretty straightforward. What one could do is feed a time series of emissions scenarios that are consistent with a no or low climatechange scenario and calculate a stream of damages and compare this to the damages generated by feeding the model an emissions path consistent with increased emissions of greenhouse gases. We could then simply calculate the difference between the two paths, and if the costs from climatechange (e.g., higher mortality) are bigger than the benefits (e.g., higher yields of crops in high latitude regions), we refer to this as damage. If changes in emissions are small, assuming that there are no feedback effects on, for example, production is reasonable. However, if changes in emissions are large, causing significant increases in, say, temperature, then there could be feedback effects through the direct effects of a change in climateon productivity. Some IAMs are able to represent this feedback loop and some do not have it built in. There are a few IAMs which can be run as optimization problems and are well suited to these types of large impact simulations.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has also established a working group to investigate theimpactsofclimatechangeon cities. Having published a series of working papers (Hallegatte et al. (2008a); Hallegatte et al. (2008b); Nicholls et al. (2007); de Bruin et al. (2009)), OECD endeavors to highlight the role that cities can play in efficiently responding to the climatic changes. Nicholls et al. (2007) try to estimate the vulnerability and the exposure of 136 port cities around the world to coastal flooding due to sea level rise and storm surge. Assessing physical exposure, the authors derive concrete rankings ofthe socio-economic exposure. They use an elevation- based Geographical Information Systems (GIS) analysis to calculate the population exposed to coastal flooding. Afterwards, they employ an asset exposure method, using GDP per capita data, in order to calculate the total value of global exposed assets. The formula they employ indicates a simple relationship between exposed population, GDP per capita and exposed assets:
As mentioned above, Australia‟s per capita emissions are very high. The cause for the high per capita emissions is primarily due to the tremendous usage of coal in electricity generation and agricultural emissions from large numbers of sheep and cattle (Pink, 2010). Australia is one ofthe most important black coal providers in the world, with great economic resources, especially in New South Wales, with an oc- currence of 46 percent, and in Queensland with 38 percent. With six percent, Aus- tralia was ranked fourth in world‟s black coal production in 2009, after China with 47 percent, the USA with 17 percent and India with eight percent (Australian Gov- ernment, 2011a). The total production of raw black coal in Australia in 2008-09 was 438 million tons. During this time, after processing, 334 million tons of black coal were available for domestic use and for export, in which NSW and Queensland re- mained the main producing states with around 97 percent of Australia‟s saleable output of black coal and 100 percent of its black coal exports (Australian Coal As- sociation, 2008a). Burning coal damages the environment. Greenhouse gases from the combustion of coal globally contribute by around 25 percent to the greenhouse effect. In Australia, 90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions arise from power gen- eration as a consequence of burning coal (Australian Coal Association, 2008b). In Figure 1 the trend in Australia‟s national greenhouse gas inventory by sectors between 1990 and 2008 are highlighted. As one may derive, since 1990, Australia‟s national greenhouse gas emissions expressed in CO 2 -e increased by about 31.3 percent from 418.4 million tons (Mt) CO 2 -e to 549.5 Mt CO 2 -e in 2008 (exclu- sive LULUF 8 ). The energy sector was the largest source of emissions with 75.8 percent ofthe national inventory total in 2008 followed by the agriculture sec- tor with 15.9 percent. In Figure 2 one can see the shifts in greenhouse gas emis- sions since 1990. The largest increase in emissions occurred in the stationary energy sector since 1990 with an increase of 52.1 percent until 2008. Between 1990 and 2008 the industrial process sector increased as well, by a considerable amount of 27.7 percent. The agriculture sector showed a slightly increase of
regarding resilience and mitigation. Apart from litigation risks, the overall economic consequences ofclimatechange will be costly, too. This includes tremendous humanitarian costs. In that sense, efforts by, most notably, humanitarian and development actors should be focused more on real prevention of future crisis situations. Anticipatory action is only one part of an integrated approach that must combine humanitarian and development aims with the need for carbon dioxide emission reduction. In both monetary and humanitarian terms, climate inaction will cost more than climate action.
2. The GTAP-W model (version 2)
Economic models of water use have generally been applied to look at the direct effects of water policies, such as water pricing or quantity regulations, onthe allocation of water resources. In order to obtain insights from alternative water policy scenarios onthe allocation of water resources, partial and general equilibrium models have been used. While partial equilibrium analysis focus onthe sector affected by a policy measure assuming that the rest ofthe economy is not affected, general equilibrium models consider other sectors or regions as well to determine the economy-wide effect; partial equilibrium models tend to have more detail. Most ofthe studies using either ofthe two approaches analyze pricing of irrigation water only (for an overview of this literature see ). Rosegrant et al.  use the IMPACT model to estimate demand and supply of food and water to 2025. Fraiture et al.  extend this to include virtual water trade, using cereals as an indicator. Their results suggest that the role of virtual water trade is modest. While the IMPACT model covers a wide range ofagricultural products and regions, other sectors are excluded; it is a partial equilibrium model.